Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Acts 20:28 "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Acts 20:28 "Take care and be on guard for yourselves and for the whole flock over which the Holy Spirit has appointed you as overseers, to shepherd (tend, feed, guide) the church of God which He bought with His own blood. |
Bible Question (short): Doc, biblical basis, please? |
Question (full): Doc, I must admit, I was greatly surprised by the length of your last response to my previous questions, without a single scripture quotation included with your various perspectives here. I guess I'm not so much looking for your legal marriage counsel on the matter, but rather scriptural verifications. - You stated: 1. "In that case, you are right, the responsibility would not be with your spouse to provide for you. Of course, it is not prohibited, either. A good Proverbs 31 wife would be doing her best to make good use of the resources God provides." Scriptural verification, please? You are making the case that the man shall provide and the woman shall not. - 2. "Gratefully, we are not yet at a stage where our government watches everything we do. The onus of responsibility is on us to notify them of changes in our status that effect their dealing with us. So, unless you plan on talking to them about your public marriage, it would be concealment by omission, which is lying." Again, are you presenting this on a scriptual basis or a legal basis? I honestly have no desire to discuss politics here, and am looking for solely a scriptural basis. You had offered one verse prior to make your case on this, but it had seemed like a misapplication to me. - 3. "Furthermore when you accept each payment check, you are tacitly agreeing to the terms whereby you received it." Actually, I made no agreement whatsoever with the government when accepting medical provisions, in regards to marriage or anything else. Rather, my lawyer had adjured the court, through force of law, to pay legally-mandated funds to the handicapped. I suggest that your supposition is false. - 4. "The law bases many of its decisions on something we inherited from the British called "common law." If you live long enough with a woman, or you declare her your wife to others, you have what is called a common law marriage. Although this marriage has no ceremony, license, or vows, it is considered a legal marriage. Although many people now equivocate on these laws in order to avoid one thing or another, nevertheless they have prevailed for quite some time. This kind of marriage would be no different -- legally -- to the kind you are describing." I'd have to investigate the option of common-law marriage further, insofar as three of my friends are also involved in common-law marriages. Two of them are heterosexual and one is homosexual. They have reported no involvements of the government, and were each openly married in one church or another. Either way, you seem to be operating on the supposition that if something is governmentally legal, that it is also therefore biblical. I'm asking for more of a biblical perspective, rather than the legal one that you've provided here. - 5. "One sure way to find out, however, is to do the following: Give the government office in question a call and explain to them your situation. Explain the kind of marriage you will be having and how it is not the kind in which they are interested. See how they respond. :-)" I've discussed this to some extent with them, but have not yet recieved anything biblically founded. I have been legally counseled to either permanently refrain from marriage, or to engage in fornication, insofar as the financial ramifications of marriage could indirectly place extraordinary risk on my health status. - 6. "You should also consider that you might be interfering with how God chooses to provide for you. He will always use means that will not be questionable to anyone." I would suggest to you that you might be interfering with the way that God chooses to provide for me, by your offer of scripturally unvalidated counsel. On what scriptural basis do you say this? I don't mean to be rude, but it seems no more than idealistic theory. - 7. "Remember, what does it matter how much money you have, as long as you belong to God? Submit entirely to Him, and He will see to it that these things are provided." Indeed, God has already chosen to provide for my medical needs through the avenue of the government. It would seem that you are attempting to suggest that the current provision is not valid. - 8. "I'd also give pause to the entire plan. When we are to move, God always provides the means by which we can do so. Sometimes lacking the resources is a way that God closes door." Again, you've not provided scriptural support for this stance. In this regard, I'll consider it to be strictly theoretical on your part. I would suggest that God is not responsible for closing any doors here. Rather, it is the secular government which has closed doors. - I will kindly reiterate: Please provide biblical representation for these marriage perspectives. At this point, I will have to consider your perspectives as either secularly-based or completely theoretical in nature. - Blessings, Reighnskye |